Veeco, Rare Tariffs Backer, Wants Duties Expanded on LED-Related Chinese Imports
Though the vast majority of the nearly 3,000 comments in docket USTR-2018-0026 opposed a third tranche of Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods, Veeco Instruments supports the proposed duties on “indicator panels incorporating LCDs or LEDs” imported from China under…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s 8531.20.00 subheading, the company said in Aug. 30 comments posted in the docket. Veeco also wants U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to impose duties on six more tariffs lines of LED-related goods not currently proposed in the third tranche, the company said in a document heavily redacted to hide “business confidential” information. The eight-page document also contained roughly two dozen redactions to hide Veeco's identity, except for one reference by name to Veeco that apparently slipped through. A revised document later posted in the docket deleted that one Veeco reference and replaced the previous document, which is now listed in the docket as "restricted to show metadata only because it contains confidential business information data." The publicly traded Veeco did about $485 million in 2017 revenue, mainly through the sales of semiconductor process equipment used to produce LEDs and other components, said the company’s most recent 10-K at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Imposing tariffs on LEDs and products containing them will “ensure that Chinese producers” positioned to manufacture those products “will not benefit from having unfettered access to the U.S. market,” Veeco said. The tariffs also “will encourage U.S. consumers to purchase such products from other sources that do not rely on stolen intellectual property to make these products,” it said. Luke Meisner, the Schagrin Associates lawyer who filed the comments on his client’s behalf, declined to comment.